This is about Rabbi Nachman of Bresluv (Breslov, Bratslov), now known as Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun MayUman! This is about his chasid and chief disciple Rabbi Natan, it's about the Saba, the Baal HaPetek.
Pages
▼
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
למך צד ציד בחטא
ב"ה חזל גילו שלמך הרג את קין בטעות, כי היה צד ציד וכו', אכן באמת לכאורה אז היה עדיין אסור לבני אדם להרוג בהמות עד נח, נמצא שלא סתם הרג קין, אלא כיון שהיה עוסק בעבירה הרגו.
Although I can only remember that they were Ossur Ba'achilah, not that it was Assur to kill. He may have been hunting for leather, furs, etc.
We find that Hevel brought a Korbon from sheep and Hashem turned with favour to it. On the other hand you can be mechalek that Korban is different because it's not for human benefit.
And logically, if ossur to eat because man had no "ba'alus" over animals (which changed after No'ach saved all their lives) then it makes sense that ossur to kill for any human benefit.
You would also perhaps have to say that the Medrash? that Chanoch was a shoemaker, means he used leather from animals which died naturally. Or that their shoes weren't made of animal derivation at all.
Although now I wonder, "lecho'orah" the issur to eat animals applied even if the animals had died naturally. And there was no chiyuv Shechitah. So the only possible reason is that even after death it would be ossur to benefit from the animals - man had no "ba'alus" over them, full stop, even their dead bodies. So you would probably have to say that the Tzadikim would have avoided even leather from animals that died naturally.
Lastly, it means Lemech's son, Yovol, was pashtus also doing an Aveirah, because for what purpose was he herding cattle, if all benefit is forbidden, even skins after natural death?
But one could be mechalek that milk, wool etc (possibly only that which is not needed by the animals themselves) might have been muttar even me-chayim, despite meat & skin being ossur even after natural death
(not THAT Nefesh HaChayim, btw) (And also BTW, I wasn't saying that I can't argue with the (real) Nefesh HaChayim, just that I didn't think my words were incompatible with his!)
... that it's a machlokes, Tosfos holds that muttar for Ben Odom to eat naturally-dead animals, while Rambam disagrees.
.. also, among other points, he brings down the Aruch Lener as allowing Ben Odom to kill fo skins, but there are other Achronim and that may not be the only way to learn!
Lastly, it crossed my mind that the "issur" to eat all animals may not have ever had the status of 7 Mitzvos, it was a mitzvah that only the Tzaddikim kept and wasn't obligatory on all B'nei Odom. That would answer Tosfos' Kashe (that's why Aiver min HaChai would apply even before Heter Achilah by Noach) and also the diyukim about Lemech, Yovol + Chanoch. I don't think it is derived from any Possuk. That was just a thought - it may not fit other points!
I'm wrong on the penultimate sentence - it is based on a Possuk (Sanhedrin 59b)
Lachem Yihyeh l'Ochlah ul'Chol Chayas ha'Sadeh" - the animals are not Lachem (for man to eat)
But if you see the Gemorah there, it still doesn't seem to describe it the same as other 7 Mitzvos.
It just says "Odom Horshon lo huttar lo Bossor Le'achila"
> Doesnt use the word "Ossur" > Doesnt say "b'nei Odom", or "Ad HaMabul" > says the second "lo", ie for him.
Still I admit it's a bit of a stretch but I could understand that the Tzaddikim like Odom himself wouldnt eat without an explicit heteir from Hashem, (which didn't come till Noach post-mabul) but the "hamoin am" didn't have an issur gomur to eat it
HH thanks for doing the legwork (although it seems obvious to me that the only machlokes would be eating the dead meat, but not other benefits). Now that I write this I am reminded of what Rabbainu said that in order to be michadesh one has to be mitzamtzem, otherwise he'll never be able to cut to the chidush... NNNNM!
I think my underlying thoughts were that it's not so mistaber to me that Lemech was coming to Odom HoRishon to proclaim his "innocence" in the same breath as admitting that he was doing one of the main aveiros of that dor! And also that Odom would "Pasken like him" against his wives, without us seeing any criticism of the hunting itself.
On the other hand you're saying that it IS Mistaber that a bad intention led a (probably) bad person to do an even worse Aveiroh.
To summarize what I think the "technical" tzedodim now are:
Sevoros to say he WAS intending to do an Aveiroh
- "Pashtus" he was hunting to eat (and such eating would've been ossur) - "Pashtus" he was hunting to eat (and even such killing may've been ossur) - Even if he was hunting for skins - such benefits MAY have been ossur (d'lo K'Oruch L'Ner, but a bit mashma from Sanhedrin 59b that doesn't suggest that U'Rdu means skins) - Even if he was hunting for skins - such killing MAY have been ossur (even if the skins were muttar. Mashma from the "reason" that only Noach acquired such ba'alus by saving all their lives, implies that Odom had no right to their lives, not just no right to eat them)
Sevoros to say he WASN'T intending to do an Aveiroh
- Maybe he was hunting for skins, and both the killing itself AND the benefit are not included in Odom's issur to eat the meat - Maybe he was hunting for meat, and the issur wasn't an issur gomur for all B'Nei Odom
A very nice "Chap"!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I can only remember that they were Ossur Ba'achilah, not that it was Assur to kill. He may have been hunting for leather, furs, etc.
We find that Hevel brought a Korbon from sheep and Hashem turned with favour to it.
On the other hand you can be mechalek that Korban is different because it's not for human benefit.
And logically, if ossur to eat because man had no "ba'alus" over animals (which changed after No'ach saved all their lives) then it makes sense that ossur to kill for any human benefit.
You would also perhaps have to say that the Medrash? that Chanoch was a shoemaker, means he used leather from animals which died naturally. Or that their shoes weren't made of animal derivation at all.
Although now I wonder, "lecho'orah" the issur to eat animals applied even if the animals had died naturally. And there was no chiyuv Shechitah. So the only possible reason is that even after death it would be ossur to benefit from the animals - man had no "ba'alus" over them, full stop, even their dead bodies. So you would probably have to say that the Tzadikim would have avoided even leather from animals that died naturally.
Lastly, it means Lemech's son, Yovol, was pashtus also doing an Aveirah, because for what purpose was he herding cattle, if all benefit is forbidden, even skins after natural death?
But one could be mechalek that milk, wool etc (possibly only that which is not needed by the animals themselves) might have been muttar even me-chayim, despite meat & skin being ossur even after natural death
(vedo"k)
:)
By the way Refuah Sheleimah (or Boruch Rofei Cholim!)
ReplyDeleteI deduced from between the lines of a recent post that you hadn't been well
Much love
MC
By the way it says here:
ReplyDeletehttp://nefeshchaim.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/parshas-noach-heter-to-eat-meat.html
(not THAT Nefesh HaChayim, btw)
(And also BTW, I wasn't saying that I can't argue with the (real) Nefesh HaChayim, just that I didn't think my words were incompatible with his!)
... that it's a machlokes, Tosfos holds that muttar for Ben Odom to eat naturally-dead animals, while Rambam disagrees.
.. also, among other points, he brings down the Aruch Lener as allowing Ben Odom to kill fo skins, but there are other Achronim and that may not be the only way to learn!
Lastly, it crossed my mind that the "issur" to eat all animals may not have ever had the status of 7 Mitzvos, it was a mitzvah that only the Tzaddikim kept and wasn't obligatory on all B'nei Odom. That would answer Tosfos' Kashe (that's why Aiver min HaChai would apply even before Heter Achilah by Noach) and also the diyukim about Lemech, Yovol + Chanoch. I don't think it is derived from any Possuk. That was just a thought - it may not fit other points!
MC
I'm wrong on the penultimate sentence - it is based on a Possuk (Sanhedrin 59b)
ReplyDeleteLachem Yihyeh l'Ochlah ul'Chol Chayas ha'Sadeh" - the animals are not Lachem (for man to eat)
But if you see the Gemorah there, it still doesn't seem to describe it the same as other 7 Mitzvos.
It just says "Odom Horshon lo huttar lo Bossor Le'achila"
> Doesnt use the word "Ossur"
> Doesnt say "b'nei Odom", or "Ad HaMabul"
> says the second "lo", ie for him.
Still I admit it's a bit of a stretch but I could understand that the Tzaddikim like Odom himself wouldnt eat without an explicit heteir from Hashem, (which didn't come till Noach post-mabul) but the "hamoin am" didn't have an issur gomur to eat it
Love to all
MC
HH thanks for doing the legwork (although it seems obvious to me that the only machlokes would be eating the dead meat, but not other benefits). Now that I write this I am reminded of what Rabbainu said that in order to be michadesh one has to be mitzamtzem, otherwise he'll never be able to cut to the chidush... NNNNM!
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteI think my underlying thoughts were that it's not so mistaber to me that Lemech was coming to Odom HoRishon to proclaim his "innocence" in the same breath as admitting that he was doing one of the main aveiros of that dor! And also that Odom would "Pasken like him" against his wives, without us seeing any criticism of the hunting itself.
On the other hand you're saying that it IS Mistaber that a bad intention led a (probably) bad person to do an even worse Aveiroh.
To summarize what I think the "technical" tzedodim now are:
Sevoros to say he WAS intending to do an Aveiroh
- "Pashtus" he was hunting to eat (and such eating would've been ossur)
- "Pashtus" he was hunting to eat (and even such killing may've been ossur)
- Even if he was hunting for skins - such benefits MAY have been ossur (d'lo K'Oruch L'Ner, but a bit mashma from Sanhedrin 59b that doesn't suggest that U'Rdu means skins)
- Even if he was hunting for skins - such killing MAY have been ossur (even if the skins were muttar. Mashma from the "reason" that only Noach acquired such ba'alus by saving all their lives, implies that Odom had no right to their lives, not just no right to eat them)
Sevoros to say he WASN'T intending to do an Aveiroh
- Maybe he was hunting for skins, and both the killing itself AND the benefit are not included in Odom's issur to eat the meat
- Maybe he was hunting for meat, and the issur wasn't an issur gomur for all B'Nei Odom
Much love!
MC
ב"ה
ReplyDeleteהרמח"ל גם כן מדבר על האיסור, אבל לא ראיתי מדבריו הכרע לענינינו - בקיצור הכוונות, כוונת אכילה, עיין שם.
נ נח נחמ נחמן מאומן